This text is part of the contents of the first book by ECOAR))) and will go on sale at the end of this year, 2026. Winning the Narrative! Manual for Combating the Far-Right Discourse.
A society’s common sense is not a neutral reality unrelated to power relations, but rather a space of dispute where what is considered normal, acceptable, or inevitable is defined. Deep political changes are usually preceded by transformations in collective perception, in which certain ideas manage to penetrate human groups until they modify their criteria of justice, authority, or belonging. This process allows us to understand how far-right movements that seek the destruction of society itself can come to present themselves as legitimate options and how the masses can assume new frameworks for interpreting reality. Analysing the transformation of common sense is, therefore, also analysing the social, cultural, and political mechanisms that make the acceptance of certain forms of power possible.
Perhaps the first stop requires pausing at Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. The Sardinian defined that the ruling class exercises its power not only through force (coercion), but also through consensus. This consensus is achieved by spreading its own worldview, its morality, customs, and values, which become the “common sense” of society. This “common sense”, therefore, is neither innate nor neutral, but rather an ideological construction that favours the recognition of the domination of the hegemonic class by the rest of society, through various institutions (school, church, media…) that manufacture and sustain this common sense, making the existing social order seem natural and inevitable.
Common sense is shaped by what configures the individual’s social identity. The Social Identity Approach indicates that people’s identity comes not only from their personal biography, but also from their belonging to social groups (nation, social class, religion, hobbies, etc.). This approach is structured around three interconnected psychological processes:
-
Social Categorisation. People tend to classify the world into “us” (ingroup) and “them” (outgroup) to simplify reality. This helps them know how they should behave and what they should expect from others.
-
Social Identification. People assume the identity of the group to which they belong. This means they internalise its norms, values, and emotions. The stronger the identification, the more they perceive themselves as an extension of the group.
-
Social Comparison. All people compare themselves with other groups. To maintain positive self-esteem, they need their group to be valued as superior or, at least, legitimate in comparison with others. If their group is perceived as inferior, they experience a sense of discomfort and seek strategies to improve their position.
A crucial concept within the Social Identity Approach is the social identity of the effects of deindividuation. This refutes Le Bon’s idea that in the mass people lose their identity. Thus, this theory demonstrates that, in group contexts, the individual does not lose their identity, but rather changes it. They shift from acting as “I” to acting as “we”. This does not imply irrationality, but rather that their behaviour adjusts to the specific norms of that “we”.
Thus, the far-right offers a powerful and attractive social identity to those individuals who feel threatened or vulnerable. The far-right grows in contexts of accelerated social change (globalisation, economic crisis, value shifts…) that pose a threat to the identity of their traditional group (the nation, the working class…). To strengthen unity, group members tend to perceive themselves as more homogeneous among themselves than they really are (“we all think alike”). The far-right exploits this by creating a monolithic and positive “us” (“the people”, “the real ones”), as opposed to a similarly homogeneous and evil “them”. This simplification reduces the anxiety caused by complexity and offers a highly comforting sense of certainty and belonging that empowers the individual. The individual thus identifies with their group and lives within a “bubble” of common sense that gives them security, but also blinds them to realities that do not fit within it. Even when a group’s common sense becomes misaligned with objective facts (as occurs, for example, with conspiracy theories), the person does not see it as an error, but rather as further proof that “the system” is conspiring against them.